You're missing my point with that paragraph - the dating within 5 years has nothing at all to do with Bologna, or any other center. It is an inference based on the pattern of evidence when it is charted chronologically.
I don't really miss it.
The real object behaves like a river, the observable number of "existing + once existing decks" can only be increased with the time. The factor of increase is variable, depending on new productions, which sometimes happen and sometimes not. The "news about the object, that reach us" is another value, much less controllable. It somehow presents a mirror of the development, but naturally it tells also lies about it. Few decks can be presented by more news than many, for instance. Their interpretation is more dependent on clever interpretation, for instance if a document is more valuable than others.
In your calculation one (probably more) information is missing: The poem of Meisner about Karnöffel. I try to fill it at least a little bit.
I had it for its greater part, but a crash of the computer floppy recently killed it. Part of the text is in Rudolf von Leyden's Karnöffelbuch, another part was in an internet document (also lost ... ha, long search, but I found it ..
http://books.google.com/books?id=hTMSAA ... er&f=false
... ). ... yes, what a pity, one page is missing.
As far I remember - it are maybe 14-16 poems of 8 lines. It's dated ca. 1450 and it appeared in a composition with other poems, which are from ca. 1415 - 1462 .. it's assumed, that the poems were sorted in chronological manner and so the "ca. 1450" has resulted. Not a very sure method.
First the Karnöffel is described in a manner, that one feels tempted to assume, that also his victim, whom he seem to rob the clothes, is possibly a "real card".
Then a category of "heilige Lehrer" (? or "Väter" ?) is mentioned and it is not said, how much they are. I assume, that these are 4. (I've some doubts: I think, he did write "heilige Lehrer", but might be slightly different)
Then the Pope is mentioned and described.
Then the Devil is mentioned and described.
Then the Emperor is mentioned and described and it is only a single Emperor.
In later Karnöffel rules we have:
2 - 5 are 4 Emperors
6 is the pope
7 is the devil
The Karnöffel is the highest trump and the Unter
So there is a difference between Meisner's information and the later rules
In Tarot we have
7 ----- a Triumphant ... somebody, who wins
6 ----- Love, which in Ingold's Germany might have devilish components
5 ----- Pope
4 ----- Emperor ... as master of the Kings
3 ----- Empress ... as master of the Queens
2 ----- the Virgin ... as master of the maids or the knights
1 ----- the Pagat ... as master of the pages
----- the victim, who lost his clothes
0 ----- Fool
so, you see, the origin of the "begin of Tarot" would be according this interpretation simply Karnöffel. Karnöffel had other numbers, in Tarot the numbers would have been dropped with (-1)
Think about it, it's not easy to get it.
Meisner uses not the expressions Keysers (Emperors), but has one Keyser and Emperor instead
He uses "heilige Väter" and it's not clear, how much they are. I guess, they are four, which present the 4 suits (and the 4 court cards).
If "heilige Lehrer" is correct remembered ... if it was heilige Väter, they would be easily translated to "Papi"
A resistant iconography is found for many mass produced decks with woodcut technique. Early woodcut use for trionfi is only postulated, not documented. Bolognese decks for the early time are missing ... ...
I'm not sure what you mean - regular decks or trionfi? Whichever it is, it doesn't matter, because "early decks" for whichever town in Italy, are missing, except for luxury Tarots. When woodcuts come along, every type, A, B, and C has its witness, and they are as near as we can tell contemporary. So your barb has missed its target - for printed decks, Bologna and A are better witnessed than any other printed early type (Rosenwald, Beaux-Arts/Rosthschild) - two for the one of B and C (Budapest/Dick and Cary Sheet respectively).
You occasionally forget, that I've quite other theories about some things ... ... With early Trionfi decks I think of the phase, when Trionfi cards hadn't a woodcut existence. As you think, that they had already one, then you've to translate my statements to that, what makes sense in your world.
I can't help it, the huge differences in our both interpretations exist. I don't believe in much mass production of Trionfi decks before 1470.
When woodcut had been used in book production with movable letters as a regular and normal technique?
True, there was this Blockbuch-technique and we more or less have only German examples.